Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness
The Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness was established to strengthen access to jurisprudence on nationality, statelessness, and related human rights issues. It provides a practical resource for lawyers, academics, advocates, and decision-makers, complementing UNHCR and the Open Society Justice Initiative’s ‘Litigating the Right to Nationality: A Guide for Practitioners’ by bringing together decisions from courts and tribunals across different jurisdictions.
The database covers judgments that address statelessness directly, such as where the applicant is stateless or at risk of statelessness.
The Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness is an evolving tool and new cases will be added incrementally.
Want to offer feedback or suggest a case for inclusion in the Database? Contact our team
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.
39 cases found
-
Abid Khan and others v Government of Bangladesh and others
Date of decision: 05 May 2003
Region/country: Asia / Bangladesh
The Court considered Section 7(1) of the Electoral Rolls Ordinance 1982 and explained that the two vital issues to be decided were the citizenship of the petitioners and the legal implications of their residence at Geneva Camp. Regarding the First Group, the Court found that: The two Petitioners were entitled to citizenship under Article 2 of the President’s Order for the reasons argued by the…
-
Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica
Date of decision: 19 January 1984
Region/country: Americas / Costa Rica
The Court held: There was no violation of Article 20 (right to nationality) in the proposed amendments (5–1 decision). The preferential treatment based on regional affinity was acceptable(Unanimous) Differentiation between natural-born and naturalized Central Americans/Ibero-Americans is not discriminatory (5–1; Judge Buergenthal dissenting) Language and civic requirements are not discriminatory per se (5–1; Judge Piza dissenting) Gender-specific naturalization through marriage is discriminatory and violates the Convention…
-
Andrejeva v. Latvia
Date of decision: 18 February 2009
Region/country: Europe / Latvia
The Court rejected the preliminary objections concerning victim status and jurisdiction, finding that the Government had lodged each inadmissibility complaint out of time according to the Rules of the Court. These objections were also dismissed on substantive grounds, with the Court holding that the Applicant’s situation remained unchanged despite the passing of the 2008 Latvia–Russia agreement, and consequently that her status as a victim under…
-
Attorney General (Appellant) v Shannon Tyrek Rolle and 4 others (Respondents) (The Bahamas)
Date of decision: 04 May 2023
Region/country: Americas / The Bahamas
The Board dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal and held that the Constitution confers citizenship at birth to children born in The Bahamas whose mother is unmarried and not a citizen of The Bahamas and a father who is a citizen. Each of the Attorney General’s three overarching submissions are addressed below. Common law presumption The Board rejected the common law presumption argument advanced by the…
-
Attorney-General v Dow
Date of decision: 03 July 1992
Region/country: Africa / Botswana
On Standing The Court held that the Respondent had standing to bring her application. This was on the basis of her parental relationship with the affected children, and the resulting impact on the respondent of the alleged discrimination. On the Merits The majority of the Court (Schreiner and Puckrin JJA dissenting) held that Section 4 of the Act was unconstitutional. The Court’s reasoning focused on…
-
Case 002/02 Extraordinary Chambers Courts of Cambodia
Date of decision: 22 September 2022
Region/country: Asia / Cambodia
In their 2018 Case 002/02 judgment, the trial judges found both defendants guilty of genocide of the Vietnamese. The conviction was upheld on appeal in 2022. The trial judges approved the project of providing legal and education as reparation measure, stating: ‘The Chamber has determined that Civil Parties affected by the treatment of the Vietnamese suffered harm including psychological trauma, discrimination, material deprivation and, importantly…
-
Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic
Date of decision: 28 August 2014
Region/country: Americas / Dominican Republic
The Court found that the State had violated the presumed victim’s rights under the Convention, and ordered the State to pay reparations and to take administrative and legislative actions to remediate the presumed victim’s situation and to ensure these violations did not re-occur. Obligation to Prevent Statelessness The Court considered that while States have the power to determine nationality, they must exercise it in accordance…
-
Centre for Child Law v Director-General Department of Home Affairs and Others
Date of decision: 22 September 2021
Region/country: Africa / South Africa
The majority of the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Section 10 of the Act is unconstitutional as it is discriminatory against unmarried fathers on the basis of sex, gender and marital status, and is inconsistent with the best interests of children and their rights to dignity, equality, a name and nationality. The Court found that Section 10 of the Act resulted in a…
-
Constitutional Court Decision 6/2015 (II. 25.)
Date of decision: 23 February 2015
Region/country: Europe / Hungary
The Constitutional Court had to decide whether Section 76(1) of the Third-Country Nationals Act was in accordance with the Fundamental Law of Hungary, in particular section Q(2) thereof, and therefore whether it was in line with the 1954 Convention. The Constitutional Court found the judicial initiative to be in part well-founded. It stated that the contested provision primarily affects stateless forced migrants who have never…
-
East African Asians v The United Kingdom
Date of decision: 14 December 1973
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Commission considered that the six applications brought by British protected persons must be distinguished from the 25 cases of CUKCs as British protected persons, according to English law, are not British subjects and remained subject to immigration control under the 1962 Act. The Commission held that the legislation was not discriminatory and did not constitute ‘degrading treatment’ under Article 3 in relation to British…
Page 1 of 4 for 39 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.